Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

These are just some behavioral similarities I've collected and summarized in one hour. Requesting a CU to fiind out if there is any technical similarities between the two users as well. (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:INeverCry/common.js has the exact userscript and same catALotPrefs as User:Daphne Lantier/common.js (plus one or two more).
 * Their userpages on enwp are both “framed” and has a image and userboxes centered.
 * Both users has userboxes for “time on Wikipedia”, “WikiProject Poetry”, “WikiProject Women's Sport”, “WikiProject Women writers”, “WikiProject Russia”, “WikiProject Ireland”, “enjoys reading fiction” and “enjoys reading poetry”.
 * On Commons both users are administrators, and both users tend to always close deletion requests using the default reason “Deleted: per nomination.” without any more info.
 * The users do a lot of edits each on Commons, but despite the massive amount of edits made by the users, they are never editing within minutes of each other.
 * On 21 March 2017 INC decided to take a break from Commons. Earlier that day both users edited “User talk:INeverCry”. One user wrote to the other user, and the other responded. During the time it took to respond, the other user did not edit Commons.
 * Both users remove images from userpages on enwp using the edit summary “ ” (case sensitively the same even), to later create a deletion requests on Commons using the same rationale “ ”. There is no tool which makes such a rationale, but it is a personally written reason. The fact that both users uses te same edit summary rationale to remove an image from a userpage on enwp, and then uses the same deletion rationale on Commons as each other is highly Duck behavior for me.
 * Both users uses the same edit summary " when adding poject tags to talk pages, which might indicate that both users et the same "autocomplete" edit summaries.
 * Both users has used the template redirect WPWW when doing so (see Edit summary search), indicating they are doing similar edits, with exactly the same edit summary.
 * If an SPI clerk hasn't endoresed this (or CU hasn't competed a check) by tomorrow (after work), I'll try and add more similarities. (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hi, long time reader, first time commenter. Unless I am missing something, there is no reason that I can see that would allow a check user here on English Wikipedia. There is no disruption, or anything else that I can see, from either of the two editors in question here on this Wikipedia project. I am failing to see what the issue is here on this project. Any concerns should be taken to Commons, given the apparent issues as given by seem to be there. 58.6.79.192 (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please check for sleepers per this edit by INeverCry “No worries. I've got other accounts I can use.”  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * may or may not be of interest/relevance. It's a low traffic article with 50 edits going back more than 4 years. Nick (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @58.6.79.192 The only issue here on English Wikipedia would be potential double voting in an RfA, as would have occurred in Cullen328's recent RfA (if the allegations of sockpuppetry were to be proven here). The full list of interactions can be found here for reference. Nick (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this should be investigated elsewhere, and by Stewards or the Ombudsman rather than English Wikipedia checkusers. This is a sensitive issue. Daphne Lantier is a Commons administrator (as am I) and has OTRS access, INeverCry is a former English Wikipedia administrator and Commons administrator, and Josve05a is also a Commons administrator. Nick (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because this involves enwiki and commons, no steward involvement is necessary. But I would recommend that whatever CheckUser ends up looking at this request liaise with their counterparts on commons. The Ombudsmen are for investigations of CU/OS tool use, and wouldn't have any scope of action here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that I am investigating this. Clerks, please let it be for now. Courcelles (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm blocking the sock indef, and the master for a fortnight.     Courcelles (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Anything else that needs to be done here? Locks, contacting Commons? Thanks again, GABgab 15:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Commons is discussing it here and here. I think that this can be closed now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Reported at Commons RfCU; consider also the pretty much identical userpage formats. Given INC's claim of more accounts, can we do a sleeper check please? ansh 666 02:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - To compare this account to the previous 2 and find sleepers, as per the master's explicit admission. Evidence:
 * Similar signature, userpage format, and interests, as noted
 * Over 60 overlaps, as per EIA, including:
 * Nominating the same users' creations for deletion:
 * Master supporting the sock's nomination at Featured picture candidates/Water Drop
 * Similar support !votes to an RFA:

Thanks, GABgab 04:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Marking as closed. Mkdw  talk 14:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Self disclosure Nick (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ and blocked indefinitely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Account is blocked and tagged, closing the case. Sro23 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Blocked on Commons as a sock of INeverCry - see commons:User:Kolya Magnitsky. Account was active at en.wiki in September, after INeverCry was indef blocked. Both accounts have been active at Afanasy Fet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the number of Commons socks listed at commons:Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry I suggest a CheckUser check would be a good idea to both confirm this one and see if there are any en.wiki sleepers.

Some of those other Commons socks are not blocked on en.wiki and have been active here, but not since 2015 at the latest, so I haven't bothered with those. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * for other undetected sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He was using a web hosting range here, which is now blocked globally, but the account is confirmed per a Commons CU. No other related acconts were seen. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeffing with tag and closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

On Commons, this user was blocked as a sock of INC, see this. SA 13 Br<b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional bare evidence to clarify, this and this with the similar "smiley" template edits. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * You can compare this acc against more fresh INeverCry’s socks which operated on this site, but note that INeverCry constantly changes IPs – see Steward requests/Global and further down for some tips. Also, On Tangled Paths demonstrated a characteristic INeverCryish style of editing from the beginning, namely mass changes of categories first and foremost. An interest in Russian literature, such as, is also a positive indicator. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * you also can apply your steward’s privileges to obtain check-user data for that and this bunches of socks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, INC was a former check user admin on Commons, he would have the ability skill to change away his network IP ranges in constantly. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I locked him. &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 14:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - TNT❤ 10:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Previous confirmed socks are for comparison.  - TNT❤ 10:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged., if you want to know how I confirmed, feel free to e-mail me. Please globally lock the account. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the global lock. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see I've been replaced :'( -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't even ask . Considering that Revi is an admin on Commons, it seems only fitting that they should do the honors. I'm blessed with a surfeit of stewards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was someone who requested SRG, Emoji u1f609.svg &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi  16:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, the last elections were very good for you I suppose! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New account, immediately jumps into recategorising in articles; cf. INC's category work (ctrl+F "Category"). Also note both accounts working on comedians, stand-ups, etc. As for the name; well. INC when it comes to self-satire. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 13:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks ; it was just pointed out to me before you blocked that JP8 was the more likely. Can't reveal my sources ;) but what a dead-eye. Cheers!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 13:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Behavior and CU logs point to . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I saw your post, I got an e-mail from an astute editor saying the same thing. Now that I know and based on more than the logs, I can say it's very .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tagged. Just this report should probably be merged into the JP8077 case.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/JP8077 and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Possible diversion to sow confusion about identity of an otherwise unrelated puppeteer. The SPI on Commons (see for detailed rationale) was inconclusive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Michele59massa5959okqwokqwokokqw is globally locked, and Michelemassa4 has not edited at en.wiki. This is a kind of forum shopping, and there is no reason to recheck the Commons CU's inconclusive results. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)